Friday, June 12, 2009

A "Reasonable Feminist" on the Single Mother Baby Boom

I agree with most of her point of view...but I would still like to add a bit of my own commentary to her points, because she is still beholden to this idea that basic Feminism is a good thing, and that there is a "reasonable" form of femininsm.

IN THE past 10 years, with my biological clock winding down and no husband in sight, I have been asked quite a few times if I had considered having a child on my own. What used to be scandalous is now practically a conventional life choice.

Not quite...it's actually now a badge of honor, a point of pride. The term "single mother" used to denote a tragedy that was rather uncommon - an unusual divorce or unfortunate tragedy that resulted in a Father's death. Now it is the ultimate statement of "I'm a strong, independent woman! I don't need no man to raise a child! My child will be perfectly fine, he or she has all the LOVE they need from me!"

This attitude is not "Practically" a convention in today's Brave New World Order...it IS the convention.

As Cathy Young notes:

This is borne out by a new report released recently by the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly 40 percent of all babies born in the United States in 2007, up from 34 percent in 2002 and 18 percent in 1980, were born to unmarried women. While unwed childbearing is much more common in black and Hispanic communities, the trend cuts across racial lines; moreover, it is driven primarily by women in their 20s and 30s, not teens. Should we treat single motherhood as "the new normal" or as a problem that needs to be addressed? And what about the fathers?

Why yes Cathy, it IS the "new normal." And what about the fathers? Under the current legal system and social mores, the father is merely a sperm donor and wallet. Nothing more, nothing less.

For some, the growth of single-mother families is a sign of female empowerment.

If this is true, than we must look at the entire equation, now don't we?

REMEMBER: Female empowerment = Male Dis-empowerment.

The growth of single-mother families is a sign alright...the sign of decline!

If children without fathers fare worse than children in two-parent families, say defenders of single mothers, the answer is better pay for women and better social programs. Yet even in Sweden with its generous welfare state, a major 2003 study found that children raised in single-parent homes were at significantly higher risk for addictions and serious psychiatric problems.

That's because society is sexist! Single mothers are discriminated against, and men still make more money than women in the workplace, therefore single mothers are oppressed and cannot provide for their children like they should be able to if society wasn't so misogynistic and oppressive!

In discussions of single motherhood, men tend to be the missing piece. The fathers are often presumed to be feckless, self-centered rogue males. The reality is not that simple.

Nah, Cathy, it IS that simple. In the age of male dis-empowerment, women CHOOSE what kind of men that donate sperm for their bastard offspring. And since the males of our current culture have been dis-empowered from the role of Head of the Household, woman no longer select the Father's of their potential children based on character traits that would make for a great "head of house." Nah, the only determinant for who these ladies make judgment on who has the privilege of impregnating them, are the guys that "excite" them. Feckless...self-centered...ROGUE!

Mrs. Young, you need clarity on this issue. Try and read some of Dr. Amneus' writings, like the Garbage Generation and the Case for Father Custody. You would see that this is PRECISELY the conditions of the Matriarchal kinship system. When the male role is defined as nothing more than sperm donor to the Matriarchal system, men become human animals that do nothing but fight, fuck and live for nothing but the pursuit of their own hedonistic whims.

Even if most mothers had adequate support from family and community, single motherhood would still leave a large percentage of men virtually disconnected from family life and the next generation.

Would?! It can and it DID! Look no further than ANY inner-city ghetto USA, that is precisely what you see: ghetto thugs disconnected from family life, living only to fight gang wars, commit crimes against society and end up dead, or incarcerated...but not before they have numerous children with other single mothers, creating the so-called "cycle of poverty."

And, for all the talk of female autonomy, this is startlingly at odds with the goal of feminism, which sought equality for women and men in both public and private life.

No...that's the "goals" of feminism that have been used to turn otherwise conservative valued women such as yourselves into useful idiots for what was nothing more than a marxist movement to destroy the nuclear family. There was NEVER anything "reasonable" about feminism, and the "goals" have ALWAYS been to destroy the role of the family as the building blocks of society, so that the new, socialist utopia could be created.

Today, we have two contradictory trends. Millions of fathers are involved in hands-on child care to an unprecedented degree; millions of children have little or no contact with their fathers. Ironically, the mother-child family unit takes us back to a very pre-feminist idea: family and child-rearing as a feminine sphere. (For both biological and cultural reasons, men are far less likely to parent on their own.) Male alienation is another likely result.

Likely? Wake up dear, it's already here!

The causes of the rise in unwed childbearing are as complex as the phenomenon itself. The economic and social pressures that used to propel people into marriage no longer exist; even Bristol Palin, the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, a conservative Christian, can opt out of marrying her baby's father without opprobrium. Expectations of love and emotional satisfaction in marriage are much higher than they once were. Gender roles are in flux. In today's economy, working-class women often have better job opportunities than men, yet men's marital desirability is still linked to the traditional notion of the "good provider."

Oh, the cause for the rise in unwed childbearing is not "complex" at all. Have you ever read "Brave New World?" That's our current reality today! We are now in our second and third generation of citizens indoctrinated and brainwashed by our media and our educational system into adopting these attitudes you are pointing out here. You can include yourself amongst your examples as proof...afterall Cathy, you think you're some kind of "reasonable feminist."

Judging personal choices is tricky; while I strongly believe in the importance of fathers, I cannot be sure what choice I would have made if children were a higher priority for me.

This is just obtuse and asinine! You cannot be sure? This is sickening! Cathy has written a raft of articles on the pathologies of the rise of the single mother household...yet she can still write a rationale for more of the same!

Let's translate this sentence into "Reasonable Feminist-Speak": I cannot be sure what choice I would have made if fulfilling my own selfish desires were a higher priority than my children's needs for a Father.

Certainly, many single parents do a wonderful job of raising their children and many married couples do not. But in general, the two-parent family does work best for children, women, and men, and marriage seems the best way to ensure it. No one wants to go back to the day when unwed mothers and their children were outcasts.

Nobody? I for one would like to. While I feel terrible for the outcast mothers and children who would suffer from the return to societal approbation and rejection of illegitimacy, we would have FAR LESS children being born in that condition in the first place. Better for a few to suffer, than the widespread breakdown of civilization we are now witnessing in the age of Male dis-empowerment!

But restoring a cultural commitment to married parenting is a goal that should unite sensible conservatives, sane fathers' rights advocates, and reasonable feminists.

To which the "Reasonable" Feminist misses the forest for the trees.

You can't "restore a cultural commitment" until and unless you Re-empower males and the role of the Father as Head of the House.

But than, that wouldn't be "reasonable." That would be sexist and misogynistic! And no "reasonable" person today would want that, eh?

4 comments:

I guess one should at least give her points for assaying the relationship between single motherhood and the demise of marriage. Now she just needs to widen her circle a little bit and grok why single motherhood was the objective all along.

What baffles me about the mainstream of society is just how ignorant they are of the flow of history, where feminism came from, what feminism's goals are, and what the implications those goals have on the fabric of society and the relationship of persons and families to the State.

Unfortunately, her epiphany comes quite late, now that she's nearly past her child-bearing years. Would have been much better for her to realize just what's going on when she was young enough to do something about it.

Moreover, I think she will be as effective as right-wing marriage advocates are in turning the battleship of the American family around. Both note the symptom--marriage absence--but neither are willing to step back and grasp the cause of the problem that manifests itself in that symptom.

I suppose one can hardly blame her though. She's drunken the feminist kool-aid and as such sees things through those kinds of goggles, unlike us "sane" FRAs (who are apparently distinct from the insane kind) who view things through our own set of spectacles.

"No one wants to go back to the day when unwed mothers and their children were outcasts."

No one? Well I do. There's no such thing as neutrality on moral behavior. You either condemn something, or condone something. In this case, if society doesn't condemn single motherhood (as in, there are negative consequences for engaging in it), then society by default condones it, even promotes it.

As far as the child being an outcast, well I suppose that's possible in an environment without abortion or adoption. Said single-mommie-by-choice can elect to do either and the child suddenly doesn't have to go through life as an outcast.

Interesting how she doesn't talk about child abuse in single-mother homes. I'd have to say that 99% of the folk I know (or know of...) that were raised by single moms were abused, mostly by the moms but "and/or" by their many boyfriends as well.

I have no romantic ideas that, "Single moms are heroes." My childhood memories consist of mainly things that, if you weren't there, sound like they are made-up lies. Anger and pain ruled the day. I rarely meet (or knew) single mothers that were living for their kids. Most of them were still living like they were single and childless!

It would be nice to see a study done about child abuse in single mother homes.